Letters

It is a smile alright but one of annoyance. You start a website by the name of talkREASON and then do the opposite. But since you had the courage to post my message and raise some points, I have to answer.

1. I did not know that Yahya had answered to my latest rebuttal. Could you please give me the URL ? I cannot answer to something that does not exist.

I still hold that you cannot engage in any worthwhile debate with Harun Yahya. If you could do that you would ve written directly TO HIM, which you did nt do as you yourself stated.

I have not, however, answered to that reply until now. The necessity, or lack thereof, of this article is left to the reader's judgment. You can see for yourself, as Mr. Yahya's reply is available at http://www.harunyahya.com/mediawatch_response_tremblay.php, at least at the time of this writing.

Anyone can setup a lame website and try to make a ONESIDED argument look really cool. Harun Yahya tried to engage you with his reply like any decent person would. But what did you do. Good attempt at slander I should say. Well done!!

2. Yet you still haven't pointed out how complexity is an argument against natural law. Natural law has produced a great number of complex things: living organisms is only one such example. Do you think that, for example, the weather system is complex? If not, why not ?

A proper approach here for benefit of all would be that you define for us what you consider to be the NATURAL LAW? what is this thing that you consider to be responsible for producing every complex thing that surrounds us including ourselves. I get the feeling that you are substituting the word CHANCE with NATURAL LAW (to make it look philosophical and maybe scientific even). So define Natural Law before we proceed.

In the example of the weather system that you are giving me. Firstly instead of swaying from one thing to another why dont you jus stick to one topic. Evolution is more suitable. Secondly what about weather system? Yeah it is complex. Now bring your proof that something called Natural Law (whatever that is) has brought about its existance. Lastly we could think about how this mysterious natural law came into existance itself. Sounds like a more scientific line of thought huh?

3. You claim that: "You bunch have got nothing to do with REASON. Its only faith that you are acting on.". Perhaps you can specify what faith we are "acting on".

Thats an easy one. Its called "athiesm" but to explain a bit "faith in the theory of Evolution"

You ask for proof. Your faith in Athiesm is evident by the fact that you cleverly try to answer ALL my points but if readers take a second look at my original post you are essentially avoiding the most important of all points I raised in my letter, that of the EYE OF THE TRILOBYTE. Why dont you cut it short and keeping in line with REASON give me an explanation for the trilobytes eye... by using EVOLUTION.

According to our policy, we've sent your letter to Francois Tremblay for a possible reply (although the decision of whether to reply is up to him). In the meantime we would like to point out that Francois Tremblay is just one of the many contributors to Talk Reason but was not involved in setting up our site. You seem to confuse Talk Reason with Mr. Tremblay, so that we view your remark about courage allegedly necessary to post your letter as directed at us rather than at Tremblay. Your remark would cause a reasonable person only to shrug since Harun Yahia is well known as a source of pseudo-scientific religuous propaganda delivered with a good measure of arrogance. Even worse, among Harun Yahia's numerous publications there is a book propagandazing the Holocaust denial, which in itself is sufficient to completely and irreversibly destroy any credibility Yahia's output might ever have. If Mr. Tremblay chooses to reply to your letter, we'll post his reply.

To answer your sole point that is not an insult, natural laws are the facts of causality in nature that we find through the scientific method. For example, we know that the orbits of planets follow a certain trajectory depending on the masses and distances we observe. If their orbits were determined by "chance", then such regularity would not exist.